Thompson presents himself as a man with two faces. In his recorded telephone calls with Brian Hooker and Andrew Wakefield, he seems to be quite
remorseful about his commission of fraud. He deeply regrets the harm he caused—for the past 10 years parents have been subjecting their children to
the MMR vaccine, not suspecting the vaccine can cause autism. But in his August 27th written statement, Thompson claims (truthfully or not) that he
had no knowledge those phone calls were being recorded; and he had not given permission for the recording. Indeed, two or three days before
Thompson’s written confession was released, he was outed, when a YouTube of one of the phone calls announced his name. Add up these factors.
Thompson is not what you would call an enthusiastic or passionate whistleblower. Of course, the man is operating under enormous pressure. The CDC
would like to send him on a one-way trip to the moon. The potential exposure, for the CDC, is very dangerous. For less serious breaches,
whistleblowers have been killed.

I'm just going to pop in to say one little thing and I'll be on my way.

Why would Obama, with his continued policy of silencing whistle blowers all of a sudden decide now to actually make good on his even older policy of
Transparency???

To be clear though, I am in support of his new found outlook toward whistle blowers as this suggests. But at the same time WTF happened Mr. Truth and
Transparency when it was Snowden whistling his tune, huh???

I guess he get's to decide which Truth should be allowed out in the open and which one's must be kept away from people???

originally posted by: rickymouse
Very good thread. The news needs to get out about possible fraud and deceit in the Pharma industry. Not all Pharma companies are that way, just some
of them.

But isn't some of the largest that are?

I do wonder how many people will be out of the job if it is as bad as we all think it is. Cause it would stop at the pharm' level, they might drag
the doctors in to it if they can prove they knew the risks of it but went ahead with it. It's a long and thick chain to rattle.

Ok...so no measles vaccine for African American boys but ok for all others???

Up to you, although a wise person would consider if they lied about vaccine harm to kids, vilified Doctors pseaking out about vaccine caused autism
and other neurological defects and injuries, isn't that at the very least bad enough for you to at least pause to consider what else they are lying
about, regardless of whether those kids are black, white or green with yellow spots?

They are liars and frauds, who buy people to continue to maintain their lies for them...if you want to trust an industry like that with the health and
well-being of your family and loved ones, be my guest.

And i'll add that i admire your faith in Humanity, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The more research I do the more convinced I am that vaccines are net negative for health.

you've got to be joking. In 1795 did fewer or more people die from smallpox than in the decade following? Has our lifespan and quality of living
generally increased or decreased since the first vaccine in 1796? I mean, c'mon. I'm not a big vaccine proponent, I am on the fence. But this is
just an absurd statement. Vaccine's may very well have some negative side effects in a small percentage of people. And if you don't want to take
that risk with your body or your children's body, then that's grand. Have at it. But go ahead and tell the folks that got measles at disneyland that
vaccines are net negative.

Yellow fever has a kill rate of around 50% when not treated by a vaccine.

The more research I do the more convinced I am that vaccines are net negative for health.

you've got to be joking. In 1795 did fewer or more people die from smallpox than in the decade following? Has our lifespan and quality of living
generally increased or decreased since the first vaccine in 1796? I mean, c'mon. I'm not a big vaccine proponent, I am on the fence. But this is
just an absurd statement. Vaccine's may very well have some negative side effects in a small percentage of people. And if you don't want to take
that risk with your body or your children's body, then that's grand. Have at it. But go ahead and tell the folks that got measles at disneyland that
vaccines are net negative.

Yellow fever has a kill rate of around 50% when not treated by a vaccine.

I really don't think it's ever been proven that vaccines rid the world of small pox, polio etc. Everyone does accept this, and if true, I can
certainly understand their support for vaccines. But there doesn't seem to be any real proof of this. Measles had gone way down years before the
measles vaccine. Small pox, polio - both declined in Europe and elsewhere at the same time they did here, even while the vaccine wasn't being used
that much elsewhere. Of course you've heard this before, as someone ends up saying it in every vaccine thread. So you either believe it or not, or
question it or not. But since it's one of the major reasons people are so supportive of vaccines, it deserves a really close look at. From what I've
researched, I don't think it can be assumed that vaccines necessarily stopped all these diseases.

...Regulatory capture happens when a regulatory agency, formed to act in the public's interest, eventually acts in ways that benefit the industry it
is supposed to be regulating, rather than the public.

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'REGULATORY CAPTURE '
Public interest agencies that come to be controlled by the industry they were charged with regulating are known as captured agencies. Regulatory
capture is an example of gamekeeper turns poacher; in other words, the interests the agency set out to protect are ignored in favor of the regulated
industry's interests.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.